The utility of recognising emotion expressions for coordinating social interactions is well documented, but less is known about how continuously changing emotion displays are perceived. The nonlinear dynamic systems view of emotions suggests that mixed emotion expressions in the middle of displays of changing expressions may be decoded differently depending on the expression origin. Hysteresis is when an impression (e.g., disgust) persists well after changes in facial expressions that favour an alternative impression (e.g., anger). In expression changes based on photographs (...) (Study 1) and avatar images (Studies 2a–c, 3), we found hystereses particularly in changes between emotions that are perceptually similar (e.g., anger–disgust). We also consistently found uncertainty (neither emotion contributing to the mixed expression was perceived), which was more prevalent in expression sequences than in static images. Uncertainty occurred particularly in changes between emotions that are perceptually dissimilar, such as changes between happiness and negative emotions. This suggests that the perceptual similarity of emotion expressions may determine the extent to which hysteresis and uncertainty occur. Both hysteresis and uncertainty effects support our premise that emotion decoding is state dependent, a characteristic of dynamic systems. We propose avenues to test possible underlying mechanisms. (shrink)

The topic of mixed emotions has received considerable attention in recent years. However, two limitations in this research are the lack of (a) theoretical prediction regarding the types of conditions likely to cause one emotion to yield to another, and (b) attention given to the moment-to-moment (MTM) experience of mixed emotions. Using the empirical context of competitive contests, the mixed emotions state of suspense was manipulated in a series of studies designed to address these shortcomings. The results indicate that the (...) most appropriate emotion pair to describe suspense is hope and fear. In addition, we find that the juxtaposition of these two emotions over the temporal sequence relies on viewers’ interpretation of observed events relative to a preferred outcome. The results indicate a prevalence of bipolarity between hope and fear at lower levels of suspense and bivariance at higher levels. Given a high-suspense episode, both hope and fear are activated; whereas when suspense is low, hope (fear) is ascendant and fear (hope) declines when it becomes obvious a preferred competitor will ultimately win (lose). (shrink)

Pain is most often an unpleasant experience that alerts us to actual or possible tissue damage. However, insisting that pain is always bad news may hinder understanding of pain’s many facets. Despite its unpleasantness – or perhaps because of it – pain is known to enhance the perceived value of certain activities, such as punishment or endurance sports. Here, we review evidence for a series of mechanisms involved in putative benefits of pain. A byproduct of pain’s attention-grabbing quality can be (...) enhanced perception of concurrent pleasurable stimuli. This is thought to explain why pain may augment the pleasure of spicy foods. By providing an aversive contrast, pain can also improve the experience of events that follow pain’s offset and lead to pleasant relief. Other potential benefits of pain derive from its ability to inhibit other unpleasant experiences and to elicit empathy and social support. The experience of pain can benefit our defence systems, since pain can enhance motivation to accumulate resources such as social support and calorie-rich foods. It can also reduce the guilt we feel after self-indulgence or moral transgressions. In sum, we highlight a series of potentially positive effects linked to pain. This framework can aid the understanding of why people sometimes seek out, enjoy, and gain rewards from pain as well as pleasure. (shrink)

Previous research has found that people choose to reappraise low intensity images more often than high intensity images. However, this research does not account for image ambivalence, which is presence of both positive and negative cues in a stimulus. The purpose of this research was to determine differences in ambivalence in high intensity and low intensity images used in previous research (experiments 1–2), and if ambivalence played a role in emotion regulation choice in addition to intensity (experiments 3–4). Experiments 1 (...) and 2 found that the low intensity images were more ambivalent than the high intensity images. Experiment 2 further found a positive relationship between ambivalence of an image and reappraisal affordances. Experiments 3 and 4 found that people chose to reappraise ambivalent images more often than non-ambivalent images, and they also chose to reappraise low intensity images more often than high intensity images. These experiments support the idea that ambivalence is a factor in emotion regulation choice. Future research should consider the impact ambivalent stimuli have on emotion regulation, including the potential for leveraging ambivalent stimuli to improve one’s emotion regulation ability. (shrink)